Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_And_The_Award_For_Most_Legall?= =?windows-1252?Q?y-Encumbered_=93Hello_World=94_Program_=2E=2E=2E?=
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:56:52 -0700
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <is94le$cq8$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <is6v20$ib5$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17ee4@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <is7pf9$18o$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> <5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1064@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <KhSFp.9349$rq2.8244@newsfe12.iad> <is8v1m$1a2$1@news.albasani.net> <J%TFp.6826$4h1.2947@newsfe06.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net es7J0IVUmzjkasydRn1Rc6K/oulO5Fg4OA466B5x59BSPjWYEDKg8C5V3ggHbtb0i3HptlrOYvMpa/aJowbVUg==
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:59:58 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="Tue/VJ0YEW7LXSxy9J85pZvoRz6FUUFNSurzBS2i9BYApfMyQhNflIVnRRuwacRxnXqfoBV5+0L6fa/fcl+xFgtPWO25V73P+falFOuNIWfk8iI96WsaTpq9eQj4vaQk"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
In-Reply-To: <J%TFp.6826$4h1.2947@newsfe06.iad>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NE1fPtI108BXa3rUQEr4d3MlfvY=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4909

On 6/2/2011 3:42 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>>>> central.gen.new_zealand>   wrote:
>>>>>> In message
>>>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's 
>>>>>>> a good
>>>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>>>> license.
>>>>
>>>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>>>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include 
>>>> that
>>>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
>>>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
>>>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>>>>
>>>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but, it is worth noting a few things:
>>> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
>>> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put 
>>> such
>>> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
>>> points how the code in question is licensed.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>>>
>>> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
>>> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
>>> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
>>> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
>>>
>>> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
>>> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
>>> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
>>> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
>>>
>>> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to 
>>> use
>>> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include 
>>> copying
>>> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
>>> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
>>>
>>> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
>>> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
>>> on Oracle's part for having done so.
>>>
>> Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
>> works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
>> force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
>> any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used 
>> code.
>>
>> I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
>> ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
>>
>
> actually, it depends on how one defines "original".
>
> AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was 
> originally written by a certain person.
>
> given a person can easily write out a hello world program without 
> needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as 
> original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code 
> from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string 
> from another such example).
>

quick check revealed an error here:
the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so 
apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the 
"Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying 
the "Hello World" string from another program.


>
> hence, I can go type out, say (in my own original / 
> creatively-designed HLL):
> import bs.io;
> void main(string[] args)
> {
>     printf("Hello World\n");
> }
>
> and, since I was the one to write it (say, as an example for this 
> usenet post), legally I can claim copyright on it.
>
> granted, this does not mean that it is "original" in the sense that it 
> involves any non-trivial behavior or creative thought (but, AFAIK, 
> this is not the sense of "original" that copyright deals with).
>

hmm... but there is possibly the matter of the total amount of content...
it may be infact too short to really be subject to copyright, which I 
had not previously considered...